Israel has hit targets with the F-35, Israel Air Force Commander Maj.-Gen. Amikam Norkin said today, making Israel the first country to use the jet in combat.

Israel says it has carried out scores of strikes in Syria against suspected Iranian emplacements or arms transfers to Hezbollah guerrillas in neighbouring Lebanon.

Local media further quoted Major-General Amikam Norkin as saying in a speech to the chiefs of 20 foreign air forces convening in Israel:

“We are flying the F-35 all over the Middle East and have already attacked twice on two different fronts.”

Norkin also displayed a photograph of an Israeli F-35 overflying Beirut, local media said.
Work to produce air vehicle spares and endurance spares for Israel recently started in F-35 production facilities in the United States and United Kingdom.

According to a contract notice, Lockheed Martin was awarded $14m for ‘the procurement of initial air vehicle spares to include endurance spares packages to coincide with F-35 air vehicle deliveries in support of the government of Israel’.

The notice read:

“Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (24.4 percent); El Segundo, California (9.1 percent); Owego, New York (8.6 percent); Samlesbury, United Kingdom (7.2 percent); Cheltenham, United Kingdom (6.2 percent); Nashua, New Hampshire (5.8 percent); Torrance, California (5.5 percent); Orlando, Florida (4.9 percent); Cedar Rapids, Iowa (3.7 percent); San Diego, California (3.6 percent); Phoenix, Arizona (3.1 percent); Melbourne, Florida (3.1 percent); Irvine, California (2.5 percent); N. Amityville, New York (2.4 percent); Windsor Locks, Connecticut (2.2 percent); Baltimore, Maryland (2.2 percent); Papendrect, Netherlands (1.9 percent); Rolling Meadows, Illinois (1.8 percent); and Alpharetta, Georgia (1.8 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2021.”

Israel is currently building the infrastructure needed to accommodate F-35s, including hardened aircraft shelters, underground pens, and maintenance facilities. In addition, the IAF has ordered 30 M-346 trainer jets to train F-35 pilots.

Construction of a manufacturing facility to produce wings under license for the F-35 was completed by mid-2014. The site is to produce a total of 811 wing pairs. Initial orders for the F-35 will be for 20 planes, with a total of 75 intended.

The first customised F-35I test platform is expected to be delivered to Israel by 2020. Former Israel Air Force chief Maj.-Gen Amir Eshel has called the F-35 “game changing” saying that Israel gathered new intelligence during a single flight by the F-35 early 2017 that other reconnaissance and intelligence gathering systems would take weeks to gather.

The IAF declared the first batch of F-35s operational in December 2017.


  1. They certainly don’t faff about with years of repetitive testing.
    Does it take off check, Does it land check, does it launch missiles check, did they hit their intended target check, its good to go.

    • I am glad Britain isn’t in the desperate geographical position as Israel. Surrounded by nations and terrorists who want them destroyed.
      They have to throw their F35s into ops in a way no other nations need to.

      • Indeed and as long as it’s not over Israel they aren’t particularly concerned about any prospective casualties that may result from errors of whatever nature that might be ironed out through exhaustive testing of aircraft or crew.

  2. The UK is simply restricted by our anaemic purchasing rates.
    We are not going to have 48 aircraft in 4 squadrons available until 2023. After that who knows. Upto the mandarins in Whitehall. The Royal Navy wants at least another 48 F35Bs to equip our carriers. The RAF wants the cheaper but less adaptable F35A.
    Looks like the interservice rivalry and lack of governmental money to reinvigorate and equip our armed forces could be the undoing of the expensive regenerated carrier strike capability.
    Williamson just needs to stamp down on the RAF. Order another 48 F35Bs today and just end all the terrible uncertainty. We have enough money to pay for much larger and better equipped armed forces.
    We spend £14-15 billion a year on foreign aid. Then seem to be happy enough giving the EU a £34 billion divorce bill even though correct me if I am wrong we were only 1 of 2 countries that always and consistently gave the EU more money then we got back. In essence this means there should be no divorce bill and the EU actually owe us money.

    • The IAF Must be doing a lot of flying with them since they’re burning through spares already…


      • According to the BBC there are rumors the IAF has been flying them since Jan last year. That would be mental.

    • Its 42 jets by 2023 not 48, and they will equip Squadrons one RAF and one FAA. The remaining aircraft are being flown by 17 Squadron the f35 operational evaluation unit and then there are 4 test aircraft.

    • “The RAF wants the cheaper but less adaptable F35A”.
      “Williamson just needs to stamp down on the RAF”.

      F-35B STOVL has basing flexibility, no doubt …… but F-35A has greater range and payload.

      Arguably, it’s the F-35A which is more adaptable – and not its more performance limited cousin. It can fly further, and drop more stuff on the bad guys! That what you need from a bomber – plus it’s significantly cheaper, too !

      We need the F-35B for carrier operations, but as most operational missions will still be from land bases – why needlessly accept the performance penalty of STOVL?

      In my view, the RAF is correct in highlight the matter, before we sink too much national treasure into the wrong variant for the UK.

      • The greater payload thing is wrong…. in the British context.
        The Lightning will carry ASRAAM, Meteor, SPEAR-3 & Paveway-4.
        And whether it is the ‘A’ or the ‘B’, the number of ordnance carried is the same.

        The larger weapons bay only counts if you have 2000lb JDAMs or the B-61 nuclear bomb.

      • Actually being able to land and take off where needed is the key to adaptability.

        From an expeditionary/intervention piont of view the B:

        1)Is not chained to whatever 8000 foot runway you can get rights to us.
        2) can work around any issues of flyover rights you may or may not sort out at the point you need to intervene.
        2)Can be hidden in less exposed or obvious airfields or be on a carrier.
        3) we can fit around 100 of the Bs on our carriers in extremis

        If we look at a peer war against an enemy that can threaten the UK the B is:
        1) Not at risk of being grounded due to airfield denial
        2) Easy to hide in multiple different sites
        3) Able to hidden away on the carriers in the Atlantic while still participating in the protection of the U.K.

        Being able to cart around munitions we don’t have or have a couple of hundred miles more combat radius is just not worth the loss of all of the above.

        • Jonathan

          I understand the advantages of aircraft-carriers – and also some of their disadvantages in comparison to airbases (like lower sortie generation,
          aircraft performance penalties – and vulnerability of the ship to nuclear-powered attack subs, and supersonic anti-shipping missiles).

          In the UK we also have agile diplomats, so basing rights has never been an issue; neither can I remember any occasion when operations to UK warplanes has been disrupted through airfield denial. Although I do remember during the Falklands campaign, when the few Exocet missiles, and iron bombs of the Argentinian air-forces, pushed the Hermes & Invincible far from San Carlos Water, and limited the CAP of Sea Harriers to a just a few minutes. Wasn’t that a form of “airfield denial” – and the reduction of operational effectiveness?

          I’m not arguing against carrier-strike, though, only for BALANCED forces – and the UK not sinking too much national treasure in the F-35B. There is also an important role for aircraft like the F-35A and Typhoon deployed from airbases – just as we did in Gulf War 1 & 2, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya – and Afghanistan.

          The arguments cut both ways, so lets configure our forces accordingly.

    • Mr Bell wrote:
      The RAF wants the cheaper but less adaptable F35A.

      I’m intrigued? In what way is the longer ranged, faster, fitted with an internal cannon )(As opposed to the pod the ‘B’ has to carry) and able to carry bigger and heavier weapon loads ‘A’ variant less adaptable.

      Point to note, the Royal Engineers used to practice building Harrier hides using a huge rubber mat as the base for the landing pad. This gave us the ability to hide Harriers anywhere we wanted to. The F-35B due to its excessive hot exhaust would melt that rubber pad in seconds, thus the F35 B is unable to be hid out in the sticks as the Harrier could have.

      I’m not saying the F35 B is a waste of rations far from it, it gives us options which are denied to Cat and trap aircraft, that said, a mix of A, B and C variants is what the UK should be looking at.

      • (Chris H) farouk – Within the closed F-35 debate there is no doubt the F-35A is more capable in range and payload than the F-35B. But that aircraft is far more adapatable and gives the Uk carrier strike at very low cost and risk.

        However the real debate is why buy F-35A when we have the Typhoon bomb truck and best QRA fighter which can combine with the F-35B in suppression and sensor roles? The corollary of that is the F-35A cannot in any way match the Typhoon in those core capabilities – speed, supercruise, weapon load, QRA, Interceptor etc. (And yes the Typhoon does have a cannon).

        So in summary of the wider debate yes the F-35A has more range and payload but is less adaptable than the F-35B but gets nowhere near the Typhoon’s capabilities. So why would we even consider the F-35A?

        • Couldn’t agree any more. Well said. We now need to sort refuelling the B’s flying from the carriers.

  3. The scenes if one makes a crash landing and Iran gets its mitts on it. The US would have to bomb the place into the stone age pretty quickly.

    • Knowing the Israelis I wouldn’t be surprised if pulling the ejector lever also activates a large self destruct charge in the sequence as well – say 2 seconds after seat ignition…


  4. The F35 project has been long and painful existence.

    My initial enthusiasm for the project back in the early 2000s was replaced by scepticism as the project missed many performance, budgetary and time targets.

    No doubt if we could go back and restart the the project a different route would be taken.

    But I can honestly say the F35, in my humble opinion, is going to be an outstanding combat aircraft that will dominate the skies for decades to come. We seem to have no end of positive reports on the F35.

    I sincerely hope the UK does order it’s full quota of 138 aircraft, with a mix of A and B variants.

  5. Reckon the Israelis want the aircraft “combat proven” before things with Iran really kick off? I imagine that introducing the F35 early is a show of force to Iran in itself. What do the Iranians fly these days?

    I know it is always the case, but the Middle East really is on the brink of something exceptionally damaging just now.

  6. One for the critics, clearly valuable asset and you really have to wonder if the any of the parties in Syria knew these were flying.

    I do wonder though if there’s a missing variant, the F35D (STOSRVL). Uses the F35C’s larger wings with smaller lift fan that gives more range, large weapons bay and load. 😊

    • There was a proposed D variant, the body of F35A and the wings of F35C. Came to nothing.

      Also a E variant was talked about this being a dedicated electronic warfare type, similar to the F18G. Again nothing.

      • I suspect because although the airframes were supposed to have large amount of commonality this is not the reality. This is also why the UK will not have As and Bs as there no real commonality benefit.

  7. The electronic warfare variant has been asked for by us navy/ marines. IAI are Developing a two seater as well.

  8. Surely the most important aspect of commonality isn’t the airframe, wings etc, but the combat system and electronics, which are common to all variants. The range aspect is not relevant – the F35A would still need multiple refuelings to fly from the UK, just like the Typhoon and Tornado. In this regard, choosing the ‘C’ variant with its greater fuel load would make greater sense! Basing the F35B on carriers and moving them closer to the area of operation nullifies the range penalty and increases the sortie rate exponentially.

    • Hi Steve,

      “Basing the F35B on carriers and moving them closer to the area of operation nullifies the range penalty and increases the sortie rate exponentially”.

      Sounds great from the comfort of an arm-chair. But in extremis, that’s not what British Admirals do. If there is a threat to the carrier, they move them away from the danger area – not closer. They trade-off increased attack-range of their aircraft for the security of the carrier. And quite right too!

      This isn’t a hypothetical argument, it’s exactly what Woodward did during the Falkland campaign of 1982 – and arguably, Argentina was not a peer adversary.

    • Steve – ive advocated before on here and elsewhere that the MOD could be cute in considering the ‘C’ variant.When tests were done on the ‘A’ under high g manoeuvers it was prone to Airframe twist which affected the Engine, causing some rotor blades to foul the outer casing.As the ‘C’ is built with a strengthened Airframe to cope with Carrier launch and Recovery it doesn’t suffer from this problem.Im no expert in aircraft construction but if the ‘C’ was operated in the more benign environment of conventional Runways I would expect in the least less maintenance and a higher Airframe hours life.The negatives of this is it is heavier ,and price wise sits between the A and the B,although range and payload are about equal.If in the future one or both of the Carriers (very big if) are converted to CATOBAR then the right versions would already be in service.

    • It certainly looks a lot better than the original x32. Maybe the competition came too quickly for them. From memory they where a long way off the x35 in the competition though. It would be interesting to see if they improved the stovsl version would the a and b variety have been closer in range and performance since the UK does not plan to land the f35 unless it’s necessary.

  9. The RAF should be knocking on the door of the IDF regards information on how the F35 worked in an hostile environment Thus allowing us to ensure that our F35s when needed worked to the best they can. To that end have a butchers at this photo of an Aircraft hanger which was hit by Israeli Small diameter bombs the other week. Talk about accurate overkill:

    • farouk – agree,i posted something similar on another thread.The F35 programme is a huge investment for all the nations involved with its development.It would be a travesty if those said nations wouldn’t want to know how the F35 performed in actual combat.I wouldn’t think for a moment that any data etc would likely be shared on an official basis but any unofficial channels,snippets of information released to the media etc would surely give away some clues.

    • Farouk, I would be very surprised if all F35 users were not sharing operational experience already!

  10. I wonder where the idf sits power wise. I suspect it you have Britain at one end and USA at the other end of a line, they would be much closer to the US side of the line.

    Hopefully one day they will push for peace in the region, rather then constant conflict, but I doubt it will ever happen, sincs history tells us that superpowers only go for peace when they are broke. Just look at the mess in southern America, heavily caused by the US interfering constantly to ensure they control the region.

    • The tiny sliver of liberal democracy among the ocean of islamist hate…. yep… its all THEIR fault.

      Good grief.

      • (Chris H) Joe – Less of the bullshit please? Just for the record Israel is not the sole, and therefore not a ‘sliver’ of democracy in the Middle East. And if you think Israel is in any way ‘liberal’ we are reading different dictionaries.
        Jordan to the East: A Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy. A system the UK and other Commonwealth countries have developed over centuries.
        Egypt to the South: A Semi- Unitary Republic.
        Turkey to the North: A Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Republic

        And once you take off your anti-Islamic blinkers you will find in fact it IS Israel’s fault. They started all this in 1947 and have been at it ever since. How about I come over to yours, kick you out of your home using lethal force, take your livelihood, kill your family and then start building settlements on land I force you into. I guess that would all be your fault would it?

    • The IDF are not on a “line” with our boys and girls and likewise the Americans.

      The IDF sits on a line with some African Nations military, Burmese military and a few others, Yano the ones that shoot civilians in the back and use children on bikes as target practice for snipers.

      Watched a video the other night of the IDF attacking paramedics trying to get to a Palestinian teenager who’d been shot in the legs. Horrible to watch.

      • SS wrote:
        The IDF are not on a “line” with our boys and girls and likewise the Americans.

        Actually the IDF are very good, especially their teeth arms, yes they have some slackers, but you find them across the UK and US armed forces. The difference we have to remember regards the IDF is the vast majority of its personnel (male and female) are conscripts (around 30 months). The regular element are very trained and then there is the reserve element.

        Whilst a few of the conscripts may have rightwing leanings, (Just like any sample of a first world nation) I think you will find that the vast majority of regular professional soldiers (like most first world nations) are not, having been weeded out by natural selection.

        I noticed your dig at the ones who shoot civilians in the back. Its something I find so many ill informed people use in which to try and claim the moral high-ground. For example Hamas have admitted on Gaza TV (I will link this in) that of the 62 people shot last Thursday 50 belonged to them.

        The thing we have to remember is that the state of Israel has been faced with annihilation since 1948, where when it declared independence 5 separate Arab nations invaded in which to wipe the state out. There battle cry was:
        “We will push the J-w , into the sea”
        and with that they informed the locals to leave home for a while and return when the job was done. The thing is, they lost.
        Since then, Israel has faced hostility from all the neighbours and after losing time and time again on the battlefield the Arabs took to character assassination of Israel amongst its friends in the west. Now if you have a bunch of people who are stabbed,shot, blown up and vilified on a daily basis for over 70 years, then some will adopt righting tendencies. The thing is Isreal as a state is less polarised, bigoted and hateful than any of the neighbours.

        You may not agree with the above, but I have lived in the region , trained many Arab troops and visited them all and let me tell you as a dark skinned Asian person with an Islamic name I was treated a lot better in Israel than I was in any of the others.

        I’ll admit Israel is not perfect, but you know what, it is a lot better than all the rest where human rights, equality and being nice to others are on the table.

        The followers of the religion of peace are naturally bullies, they will always try it on with you, and when they find out you can’t be bullied, they play the victim card. Its written into their DNA.

        Classic example the Crusades , oh how the Islamic world and the liberals will wax lyrical regards the Crusades, yet the fact remains not only was it a reaction to the invasion of the Christian holy land by invaders, the invaders won. Yet that’s not the impression we hear when the subject is brought up.

        • Can’t argue with your first two paragraphs, fair points.

          “I noticed your dig at the ones who shoot civilians in the back. Its something I find so many ill informed people use in which to try and claim the moral high-ground. For example Hamas have admitted on Gaza TV (I will link this in) that of the 62 people shot last Thursday 50 belonged to them.”

          Believe me I’m not ill informed, and no-one is taking the moral high ground, so 50 of them belonged to Hamas? so what, who is Hamas? who told you they are terrorists? your government? haha please, the same government who told you Mandela and Gandhi were terrorists.

          Now I’m no supporter of Hamas, but you have to realise thats who Palestine voted for, they are the authority in Gaza, listing a group who are supported for and voted for by their own people as terrorists never works.

          Moving onto the rest of you comment I can see we will never agree, and hold massively different views (which is fine btw)

          I personally am anti-zionist, I don’t agree with the creation of Israel in Palestine, and I certainly don’t believe “Israel declared independence” like it was the right thing to do.

          The number of Jews in Palestine at the turn of the 20th century was 55k, 40k of those were Russian born. So how anybody can believe that a minority of 15k people, less than 1% of the populace has a right to have half of the land because their ancestors lived there over 2000 years ago is preposterous.

          Britain had no right to take a peoples country off them and form a new one with mainly foreign people.

          What would China do if a foreign power took land and created a state for the 20m Uyghurs? what would African countries do if a foreign power took land and created a state for the 50m Yoruba people? what would India do if a foreign power took land created a state for the 75m Tamils? and they have populations in the millions, at the time of the Balfour declaration the Jewish population of Palestine was 70k, around 3% of the population.

          The jews were actually better treated in Muslim countries right up to the end of the second world war, David Ben-Gurion the first Israeli prime minister was born in Poland and noted how well jews were doing in the Ottoman Empire. In fact during WW1 he created a militia of jews to fight the British on the side of the Ottomans.

          It was only after the Balfour declaration that he started to support Britain’s and the world zionist organisations plans for a jewish state in Palestine.

          The partition of Palestine, where 36% of the population, 30% of that were not born there, were given 56% of the territory was rejected by the Arabs and war was inevitable, then came the “civil war” even the USA backed out of supporting the partition at that point.

          But the war happened and 700k arabs fled or were expelled from their homes and have never been allowed to return. Israel has ignored UN resolutions and continually to this day builds illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land, and this is not the land pre 1948 that was given for a jewish state, this is the 60% of territory that was agreed on by Israel and the UN for a Palestinian state.

          Having said all that we can’t turn back time, Israel exists and I’m a believer that if you and your family were born in a country you belong there and that country is yours. Israel has much as a right to be there now as the Arabs because thats what time does. But there can only be peace with a two state solution, based on pre 1967 borders with east Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital. But with politicians in Israel calling for no two state solution, continued ignorance of international law on illegal settlement building, being treated like second class citizens in their own land and now Israel has discovered huge amounts of oil in the Golan heights (occupied Syrian territory) what other option do Palestinians have other than to attack and protest. They have been abandoned by most of the international community.

          • (Chris H) – SoleSurvivor – Can I gently point out that the only role of the British in Palestine was that of Mandated Protecting Power. A position declared by International agreement in the ’20s. The British had nothing to do with the Zionist terrorists at all and had many personnel murdered by them. 746 service people died protecting innocent Palestinians against those US funded terrorists. So can I ask you to retract that part of what was otherwise an excellent post.

            As for the Balfour declaration that is often misquoted so can I remind you of the critical part :

            “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

            That does not give any exclusivity to Jews anywhere and protects the rights of other religions within Palestine. In fact the complete opposite of what the Zionists demanded and then created after WWII.

            Britain has clean hands over Palestine and Israel. The same cannot be said of the USA.

          • Hi Chris, perhaps I laid the blame a little too much on Britain in my comment.

            But my opinion is still that the British betrayal of Lawrence of Arabia and the arabs at the end of ww1 in the Sykes-picot agreement and the Balfour declaration as the main causes of problems in the Middle East to this day.

            The Balfour declaration gave the zionist movement what they needed, the jewish political groups in Palestines main objective before the Balfour declaration was just jewish representatives in government, they even admitted an arab led Palestine would not be a problem as long as they had a seat at the table, but after the Balfour declaration they joined the world zionist organisation in wanting a separate jewish state.

            Your comment about the second part of the Balfour declaration is true, but if that’s the case have we not let the Palestinians down by not enforcing the agreement?

            So we do have to take some of the blame for the origins of the problem in my eyes.

      • SS wrote:
        Watched a video the other night of the IDF attacking paramedics trying to get to a Palestinian teenager who’d been shot in the legs. Horrible to watch.

        Was that the one where a knifeman had just stabbed a soldier and the army initially kept back people as he was wearing a suicide vest.

      • The IDF is not pushing for conflict. Israel has tried to make peace repeatedly. Even offered multiple compromises, however has always been met with nothing but terrorism. From so called civilians who when they sneak across the fences stab families sitting down for dinner to death, gun down police even if they are also Muslim merely because they are Israelis and where the uniform of a policeman or soldier.
        South America is the fault of Euro trash and Communists not the United States. American interventions were to enforce the Monroe Doctrine of no outside intervention or to halt communism and safeguard American property and lives. THAT IS ALL. The US hasn’t made any territorial claims since the Mexican War ended in 1848! In fact we fought the Spanish-American War where we liberated the remaining colonies. Not exactly the actions of a country bent on imperialism.

        • isreal loves to play the victim to get the US popular vote, to avoid some questions like why are they illegally occupying areas (international law) and why is no country questioning it. Russia did it in Ukraine and there was international up raw. Isreal hasn’t been under serious threat of invasion in 60 years, and yet they keep playing that card.

          The middle eastern problems are far far too complicated and making isreal a super power / regional bully is not helping. As is the US blindly supporting them, because of the votes in it.

          If they really wanted peace with their neighbours, the first step would be to withdraw from the illegal settlements as a sign of good will. They won’t because they don’t have to and don’t feel under any threat to do so.

          • Steve – at the back end of the Bill Clinton Presidency much effort was put into a lasting peace settlement.Ehud Barak put together a package that made so many compromises in regards to settlements,the status of Jerusalem and possible solutions for the ‘returnees’ that he himself felt his political career and even his life were in severe danger should it be acceptable to the Palestinians.Yasser Arafat’s response on the other hand was to reject the offer made – arguably the best offer they were likely to get for a long time if not forever.He even admitted that any Palestinian Leader who signed any full settlement agreement with Israel would be signing his own death warrant.With this in mind I think that lasting peace there is just not possible for the foreseeable future at least.

          • Paul T

            Gemal Helal who was an influential State Department advisor who translated for President Clinton also said “What the Palestinians were offered, no Arab leader could accept.”

            There is a book called “The Truth About Camp David” by Clayton Swishers, a very good read.

          • (Chris H) SoleSurvivor – while we may disagree strenuously on many things on this matter I stand full square with you. Israel’s creation by the US funded Zionist terrorist gangs, its stabbing in the back of its British ally and the shipping in of hundreds of thousands of Europeans was wrong by any measure and the only justification is some book written 2,000 years ago. Allegedly. It was ethnic cleansing before we invented term for the Balkans – Arab Muslims replaced en masse with European Jews. Israel is therefore only ‘surrounded by enemies’ because they took their lands, nation, businesses, homes and killed their families and then forced tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children into worse ghettos than the Nazis did in Warsaw.

            Israel gives the middle finger to International Law over settlements (aka land theft) and then cries ‘victim’ when its legal owners react badly. And don’t lets pussy foot around who is really to blame for all this its the USA Foreign Policy driven by Zionist politics in the USA. No US president ever got elected upsetting the Israel lobby in the USA. And of course the IDF can affopd to buy all these F-35s – They get over £3 Bn in cash (yes really) every January from the USA and promptly use it to buy US arms. International Pork Barrel Politics from your friendly US President and Congress.

            Israel was born out of terrorism in its most violent form and exists on the back of US funding and political air cover. This conflict could be solved with one phone call from the USA. But they won’t make that call will they? Who cares about poor women and kids in a slum called Gaza when you can have shiny new F-35s rolling of a production line in Texas …

          • Good comment Chris, we do agree on this.

            A quick word on Elliot below, our engagements might get a little “hairy” at times because we are both passionate in what we believe.

            But Elliot below is a typical Youtube poster, he insults in every debate and lives in a complete bubble detached from the real world.

            A person who doesn’t believe in international law speaks volumes for the backward, deluded and stupid views he obviously has.

        • Settlements are NOT illegal. They are merely disputed by Euro and Arab countries. If the US accepted European objections as to illegalities it would not exist neither would Latin and South America.
          Arab countries objections? They reject Israel’s right to exist and routinely call America the great Satan. Not exactly the place to go for legal objectivity.
          In your view the IDF being good at their job and Americans being loyal allies is bad? Because it reduces Israeli casualties and therefore the will to negotiate? You obviously have NOT been to the Balkans, mutual heavy casualties do not lead to negotiations. They make genocide inevitable due to both sides populations acquiring massive and justifiable lusts for revenge. Negotiations are only successful when A: Both sides are reasonable and have something to gain or B: When one has complete dominance of the situation and can impose their solutions ala Vienna conferences and Potsdam.

          Unilateral withdrawal from settlements? In negotiating 1.never show your weak and 2. never show your stupid. Definitely do not show your weak and stupid.

          • (Chris H) Elliott – true to form you proffer abuse and insults to calm discussion. We have this:
            “South America is the fault of Euro trash and Communists not the United States”
            Not sure what South America has to do with a discussion about Israel but hey any opening for the dumb ‘Eurotrash’ shit eh Elliott?

            And then this utterly dumb gem:
            “Settlements are NOT illegal. They are merely disputed by Euro and Arab countries”

            Ooh a sneaky dig at us Eurotrash Elliott? No it is an indisputable fact that they are most definitely illegal under International Law and UN Resolutions. Last time I looked the UN was made up of more than us Eurotrash and a few Arabs…

            In any other country but the USA I would say you disgrace it with these comments but actually you totally represent how most (not all) Americans are educated ..

          • 1. South America brought up by Steve, correction was therefore addressed.
            2. Law needs sovereignty to be valid.That means passage and then enforcement by the Constitutionally empowered branches of government.
            3. For the United States this would mean passage by 2/3 majority in both Houses of Congress and the signature by the President. The Senate and the President agreeing to give over the sovereign power of the US to foreigners for whom the American people hold little regard.
            4. In Israel this would mean passage through the Kenesset.
            You can continue hopping around and gesticulating wildly like Yosemite Sam while proclaiming the existence of “International” law, but it will not make your desperate railings against the success of Israel any less childish.

          • (Chris H) Elliott – Another fine example of diversion and misrepresentation. True to form Elliott. Regarding International Law I realise that Americans believe the USA is ‘The World’ but some of us live in a global world. We have rules and laws to make everything work. Like the WTO with trade and the UN with International affairs. We also have International Courts to try war criminals and war crimes. Places where Netenyahu should be if I had my way.

            Now nowhere have I or anyone else suggested “the President agreeing to give over the sovereign power of the US to foreigners”. Where the hell do you get that shit from? The point at discussion was about the illegal building on and theft of Palestinian land by Israeli settlers. International Law does apply and exists governing land taken under conflict or annexed. The US is not involved here so where does your ‘Sovereign Power’ get in any way involved?

            Oh and no the Israeli Knesset are irrelevant here as well as its not Israeli territory. What Israel is doing is playing the long game and progressively stealing more and more land to eventually make the ‘two state solution’ impractical and therefore impossible. And basically achieve the Final Solution (note my words) of the elimination of the land of Palestine and with it its people.

            I think one of the best ways this can be summed up was by an Israeli in a BBC news piece by Jeremy Bowen (a highly regarded Middle East reporter) from Jerusalem during the riots after your idiot President moved your Embassy to Jerusalem (which cost the lives of 100+ protesters). He was asked why he couldn’t say the word ‘Palestine’ and he just froze – and then said “Why? It doesn’t exist. It never has existed. Its always been Israel”

            When you have that level of either ignorance or deliberate fake history what chance have the Palestinians got? or maybe you don’t care. Well maybe some of us ‘Eurotrash’ do care ….

          • America is not and never has been a part of the ICC. When the State Department suggested joining it not only did the Senate reject it. They responded by passing the American Service-Members Protection Act which not only forbids ANY government allied or not to hand over American Military and Government authorities to The Hague. The Act both empowers and REQUIRES the President to use what ever means to obtain their release to include the use of military on allied states. Hence the nicknames the law acquired, “Bomb The Hague Act and Hague Invasion Act,” being among the more entertaining.That law passed the Senate unanimously.
            The concept of International law is a loss of sovereignty. The voters of America and their representatives decide their actions not The Hague , not France, not China, and since 1776 certainly not Britain.
            My President merely discharged his duties in accordance of a Law passed with the will of a bipartisan Congress repeatedly. So 100+ rioters who were throwing Molotov’s, pipe bombs, and rocks, in addition to trying to stab policemen and military personnel got themselves shot. We used to call that Darwinism, play stupid games win stupid prizes. Rock and Pipe Bomb vs Tavor and Merkava, that took a special kind of stupid to charge like a nimrod.
            As for Israeli sovereignty and the occupation zone. The traditional definition for sovereignty is clear and consistent police power within the area. Therefore Kenesset Law not Euro or UN law.

            As for Palestine existing? Palestine is a Romanization of Philistia. So named as a punishment for rebellion. The then it was a part of the part of the province of Assyria under 3 different empires and 3 caliphates. All before Britain shoved the mandate down the regions throat after dismembering the Ottoman Empire.

            As to whether I give a damn about the Palestinians. They commit terrorist acts and shout “Death to America,” as if it were it were a euphoric cry. The world contrary to popular belief can be emphatically simple, war or peace choose wisely. Choose unwisely? Well God gave us cluster bombs, bullets, and tanks to secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

          • Elliot you sound like a complete moron.

            “Well God gave us cluster bombs, bullets, and tanks to secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity”

            You’re embarrassing yourself mate.

          • Hmmm knife wielding fanatics and suicide bombers vs the IDF and the Armed Forces of the United States. The only ones coming off as sounding a few fries short of a happy meal are the people who bet against Americans and Israelis in favor of terrorists.

          • No one is betting against anybody, only in your little mind is this happening.

            People have an opinion and a view which is completely valid.

            Take your “America against the whole world” imagination and go comment on YouTube or some forum for nutcases.

            You’re on a British website making a complete fool out yourself.

            It’s sad to see.

  11. Really enjoy reading all the informed comment in the UKDJ. It should be required reading for our politicians!!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here